Patent

Ericsson vs CCI- The Future of Indian SEP Disputes?-II


Why_Cant_We_Be_FRANDS

In this post, Swati continues her analysis of the recent decision of the Delhi High Court in Telefonaktiebolaget lm Ericsson v Competition Commission of India W.P.(C) 464/2014 & CM Nos.911/2014 & 915/2014. Can the allegations made by Micromax and Intex be construed as abuse of dominance? Micromax and Intex, both claimed that exorbitant royalty rates and unfair licensing terms proposed by Ericsson amount to a patent holdup. Further, FRAND terms have been violated by Ericsson’s opaque licence negotiations and legal…


Read More »
Patent

Ericsson vs CCI- The Future of Indian SEP Disputes?-I


wars-300x226

In this post, Swati Muthukumar, our Spicy IP Fellowship applicant discusses the recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in Telefonaktiebolaget lm Ericsson v Competition Commission of India W.P.(C) 464/2014 & CM Nos.911/2014 & 915/2014. We have previously blogged about the recent Delhi High Court judgment, in which the court ordered the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) to continue its investigation into Ericsson’s alleged anti-competitive practices. In this two part post, I will analyse the issues raised in the judgment…


Read More »
Data Exclusivity Drug Regulation Patent

Delhi HC Imposes Strict Conditions on the Sale of Biomedicines: Part 1/2


In an order that is likely to have wide-ranging ramifications on the biomedicine industry, the Delhi High Court on Monday (25th April) imposed some conditions on the sale of the biosimilar version of Roche’s breast cancer drug, Trastuzumab, by Biocon and Mylan. The decision, clocking in at 227 pages, discusses a number of profoundly important issues such as data exclusivity, patent linkage, norms to be followed for patient safety and the rights of patentees after the expiry of their patent….


Read More »
Others

SpicyIP Weekly Review (24th – 30th April, 2016)


weekly review keep calm

SpicyIP Highlight of the Week Our SpicyIP Highlight was definitely Prateek Surisetti’s two-part post submission for the 2016-17 Fellowship. In the first part, he chronicles the issues associated with permitting companies to trademark colours having extensive uses in the light of the 2013 Nestle v. Cadbury judgement. He then looks into the basis of the Sieckmann Criteria and explores the ‘ideal threshold’ pertaining to the clarity and precision required of applications seeking registration of color marks. In the second part,…


Read More »
Sponsored

TAMU: Post-grad and meet & greet opportunities


cliptamu

We have some exciting news for readers who may be interested in higher education opportunities. The Center for Law and Intellectual Property at Texas A&M University School of Law, ranked amongst the top 14 IP law programmes in the USA, is offering post-graduate programs in IP Law, and IP Jurisprudence. The Center has also expanded in the past academic year to include some stellar faculty of which Professor(s) Peter Yu, Srividhya Ragavan and Irene Calboli all have expertise in Asia and India…


Read More »
Copyright Others

IP lawyer copies IP lawyer, on copying!


3301038664_91bc6dfdcf_o

[This post has been authored by Gopika and is being posted on her behalf]. [Update: We have an update to the post, as described at the bottom of the post]. The heights of irony! What do you do when an IP lawyer copies an IP lawyer – on the topic of copying? A few days ago, Ms. Leila Amineddoleh, partner and co-founder of Galluzzo & Amineddoleh LLP and a specialist in art and IP law, alleged plagiarism (see here) of…


Read More »
Trademark

Choco Wars: The Trademark Menace – Part II


Cadbury-claims-purple-reign-in-Nestle-color-mark-dispute_strict_xxl

This is the second part of Prateek’s two part post on whether colours can be trademarked. In Part I, I had written about the problems of allowing trade marks of colours in the abstract (multiple formulations). In Part II, I am going to be writing about the concerns with allowing trade marking of colours in general. In an earlier piece on the blog, on the overruled UK High Court judgment in the Cadbury case, Ms. Basu rhetorically questioned if there was any…


Read More »
Trademark

Choco Wars: The Trademark Menace- Part I


Untitled

In this two part blog post Prateek Surisetti, our Spicy IP Fellowship applicant, discusses whether  companies can trademark colours. In this two part post, I will discuss the problems with allowing companies to trademark colours with very wide limits of usage through an analysis of one of the legal battles fought between the two chocolate heavy weights: Nestle and Cadbury. Essentially, Cadbury wished to register a trademark for the colour Pantone2685C (Dairy Milk’s Purple), but Nestle opposed it. Finally in 2013, after 10…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent

DHC rules that Ericsson concealed relevant information in Xiaomi matter – vacates injunction in part


On December 9, 2014 we had informed our readers that the Delhi High Court (DHC) had granted an interim injunction against Xiaomi.  The injunction was later modified by an order of the Division Bench of the DHC, and Xiaomi allowed to sell its devices subject to certain conditions.  The first post started with an editor’s note, which I find it useful to reproduce (just replace probably with almost certainly: “Due to the large number of queries around this – I would like…


Read More »
Others

SpicyIP Weekly Review (10th – 24th April)


This review is brought to you by Rahul Bajaj, SpicyIP Fellow 2016-17. SpicyIP Highlight Our highlight of the week definitely was a two-part post from our SpicyIP fellowship applicant, Prateek Surisetti, on the copyrightability of literary characters. In his first post, Prateek notes that courts typically apply two main tests: the “especially distinctive” test and the “story being told” test for determining whether a character is copyrightable. He then examines the main factors that have been evolved by courts for…


Read More »